Transcript OECD - Anguilla Financial Services Commission

Low-Tax Jurisdictions Make
the World a Better Place, but
for How Much Longer?
Anguilla, November 28, 2008
International Threats
OECD’s “harmful tax competition” initiative, as
well as “corporate governance” and “flags-ofconvenience” campaigns.
EU’s numerous tax harmonization proposals such
as the savings tax directive (part 2) and
corporate tax base/rate.
UN’s proposed International Tax Organization
and so-called Committee of Experts on
International Tax Matters, both pointing toward
global tax schemes.
Threats from the United States
A change in White House policy, leading to a
rejuvenated OECD anti-tax competition
campaign.
American support for expanded savings tax
directive.
Anti-tax haven legislation in the US, such as
the Levin/Obama proposal and
Dorgan/Obama proposal.
Role of the Financial Crisis
Sarkozy and other Europeans are pushing for
global regulation and are targeting so-called
tax havens.
The IMF would like to be a global regulator.
Nothing happened at emergency financial
summit earlier this month, largely because of
political transition in the United States.
Why Does this Battle Exist?
Globalization has reduced barriers to cross-border
transactions, facilitating the flow of jobs and
capital to low-tax jurisdictions.
The resulting tax competition has forced dramatic
tax rate reductions and tax reforms.
High-tax nations are trying to thwart these
developments by using international
bureaucracies to persecute low-tax jurisdictions.
Tax Competition Promotes Good Policy
Since 1980, there has been a 26-percentage
point reduction in average top personal tax rates
in developed nations.
In the same period, there has been a 21percentage point reduction in the average
corporate tax rate.
There are now 25 flat-tax jurisdictions, up from
three in 1980.
This is happening in spite of politicians.
Average OECD Top Tax Rates
Average top tax rate in OECD nations
70
60
50
40
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2004
Falling Corporate Tax Rates
Average corporate tax rate in 1980 = 48
percent.
Average corporate tax rate in 1990 = 42
percent.
Average corporate tax rate in 2000 = 34
percent.
Average corporate tax rate today = 28
percent.
America is now an outlier on corporate tax.
Growing List of Flat Tax Nations
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1983
1988
1993
1998
2003
2008
Jersey
1940
20 percent
Hong Kong
1947
16 percent
Guernsey
1960
20 percent
Jamaica
1986
25 percent
Estonia
1994
22 percent
Latvia
1995
25 percent
Lithuania
1996
27 percent
Russia
2001
13 percent
Slovakia
2004
19 percent
Ukraine
2004
15 percent
Iraq
2004
15 percent
Romania
2005
16 percent
Georgia
2005
12 percent
Trinidad & Tobago
2006
25 percent
Pridnestrovie
2006
10 percent
Iceland
2007
35.7 percent
Mongolia
2007
10 percent
Kyrgyzstan
2007
10 percent
Kazakhstan
2007
10 percent
Macedonia
2007
12 percent
Montenegro
2007
15 percent
Albania
2007
10 percent
Czech Republic
2008
15 percent
Bulgaria
2008
10 percent
Mauritius
2008
15 percent
Good Policy Matters
The global economy is much stronger today –
even with turmoil in financial markets – than
it was in the 1960s and 1970s, when tax
rates were higher and governments had more
power.
Caveat: Politicians can destroy growth by
repeating mistakes of Hoover and Roosevelt.
The world is a laboratory. Nations that adopt
pro-market policies prosper.
Living standards depend on growth.
Per Capita GDP in Former Communist Nations
$16,000
Estonia
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
All Others
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
Eight ex-Soviet Republics and Romania
$0
1992
1993
1994
1995
Source: Angus Maddison, Historical Statistics for the World Economy
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Chile vs Venezuela
$11,000
$10,000
Per Capita GNP
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
Venezuela
Chile
$3,000
$2,000
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2004
Ireland vs France
$40,000
$35,000
Per Capita GNP
$30,000
$25,000
$20,000
France
$15,000
Ireland
$10,000
$5,000
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2004
So Where’s the Harmful Part?
The OECD, European Commission, UN, and
allies are motivated by greed for more tax
revenue – meaning more power, which is
why they want an OPEC for politicians.
This is unseemly, so they claim their real
interest is stopping “harmful” tax competition
– but have never offered any evidence.
Empirical and theoretical data supports tax
competition.
George Stigler and Gary Becker
Stigler: “Competition among communities
offers not obstacles but opportunities to
various communities to choose the type and
scale of government functions they wish.”
Gary Becker: "...competition among nations
tends to produce a race to the top rather
than to the bottom by limiting the ability of
powerful and voracious groups and politicians
in each nation to impose their will at the
expense of the interests of the vast majority
of their populations.“
James Buchanan and Milton Friedman
James Buchanan: "...tax competition among
separate units...is an objective to be sought
in its own right.“
Milton Friedman: "Competition among
national governments in the public services
they provide and in the taxes they impose is
every bit as productive as competition among
individuals or enterprises in the goods and
services they offer for sale and the prices at
which they offer them."
Vernon Smith
“[Tax competition] is a very good thing.
…Competition in all forms of government policy is
important. That is really the great strength of
globalization …tending to force change on the
part of the countries that have higher tax and also
regulatory and other policies than some of the
more innovative countries. …The way to get
revenue is doing all you can to encourage growth
and wealth creation and then that gives you more
income to tax at the lower rate down the road.”
Edward Prescott
“With apologies to Adam Smith, it’s fair to say
that politicians of like mind seldom meet
together, even for merriment and diversion,
but the conversation ends in a conspiracy
against the public, or in some contrivance to
raise taxes. This is why international
bureaucracies should not be allowed to create
tax cartels, which benefit governments at the
expense of the people.”
Edmund Phelps
“[I]t’s kind of a shame that there seems to be
developing a kind of tendency for Western
Europe to envelope Eastern Europe and require
of Eastern Europe that they adopt the same
economic institutions and regulations and
everything. …We want to have some role
models... If all these countries to the East are
brought in and homogenized with the Western
European members then that opportunity will be
lost.
Even OECD Economists Admit…
OECD economists have written that “the ability
to choose the location of economic activity
offsets shortcomings in government budgeting
processes, limiting a tendency to spend and tax
excessively.”
OECD economists note that “legal tax
avoidance can be reduced by closing loopholes
and illegal tax evasion can be contained by
better enforcement of tax codes. But the root
of the problem appears in many cases to be
high tax rates.”
The Moral Case for Tax Havens
The majority of the world’s nations do not
fully respect human rights.
There is widespread persecution and
discrimination against political minorities,
ethnic minorities, religious minorities, and
sexual minorities.
There are many nations where corruption,
crime, and expropriation are endemic.
Political instability and economic
mismanagement plague other nations.
Tax Havens are a Refuge
Financial privacy helps individuals
protect their human rights and civil
liberties.
Corrupt governments are less likely to
steal and expropriate if they know that
most assets are protected offshore.
Unlike most of the world’s
governments, all the major tax havens
have excellent records of honest
governance.
Even Critics Agree…
Jeffrey Owens, leader of the OECD‘s
anti-tax competition campaign,
recognized the role of tax havens as a
bulwark for the protection of human
rights. As reported by the U.K.-based
Observer, “Owens...stressed that tax
havens are essential for individuals who
live in unstable regimes.”
Even Critics Agree…
Joe Guttentag, International Tax
Counsel at the Treasury Department
during the Clinton years, admitted,
“How far do we want to go with this
information exchange, and the secrecy
issues, the privacy issues, and so forth,
which relates to the problems of corrupt
governments, of danger to your
children and to individuals?”
Even Critics Agree…
The United Nations acknowledged in its
1998 report that, “For much of the
twentieth century, Governments around
the world spied on their citizens to
maintain political control. Political
freedom can depend on the ability to
hide purely personal information from a
Government.”
Reasons for Optimism
The terms of the debate have improved. Tax
competition is widely seen as a positive force.
Even the OECD has changed its rhetoric.
The moral argument – that so-called tax
havens provide refuge for victims of
oppression – is powerful to journalists.
Likewise, the media sympathizes with the role
of low-tax jurisdictions as a way for people to
guard against crime and corruption.
More governments now have a self-interest in
preserving tax competition.
Reasons for Pessimism
Expanded Democrat control of Congress
increases risk of bad legislation – loss of
deferral, Section 911, anti-inversion laws, etc.
President Obama in the White House almost
certainly is going to result in the United
States siding with high-tax nations, as
happened during the Clinton years.
Demographic pressures in OECD nations will
lead politicians to be more aggressive in their
search for more tax revenue to redistribute.
Status of Anti-Tax Competition Schemes
The OECD “harmful tax competition” project was
stalemated earlier this decade, but it was not
killed.
Most low-tax jurisdictions sent “commitment
letters” to the OECD, but they were not binding
since they required a “level-playing field”.
But now the OECD is preparing new blacklists
based on number of TIEAs implemented.
Status of Anti-Tax Competition Schemes
The European Commission’s STD was
emasculated earlier this decade thanks to US
refusal to participate and Swiss demands for
big loopholes.
But the Commission now wants the EUSTD,
Part II, which would cover a wider range of
financial instruments – and seek participation
from more jurisdictions.
European nations also want to move toward
worldwide taxation for individuals and
companies.
A Strategy for Anguilla?
Low-tax jurisdictions should unite behind a
common strategy, presumably one based on
benefits of tax competition, financial privacy,
and fiscal sovereignty.
The level-playing-field approach is still
important, but may not be enough.
Delay, delay, and further delay may be the
best approach.
Conclusion
In 2000, the international bureaucracies
appeared unstoppable.
After Bush’s election, tax harmonization
efforts were thwarted and tax competition
flourished.
The 2006 elections and 2008 elections have
resuscitated anti-tax competition forces.
You must fight since the other side will never
be satisfied.
What Does Adam Smith Say?
An inquisition into every man’s private
circumstances, and an inquisition which, in order
to accommodate the tax to them, watched over
all the fluctuations of his fortunes, would be a
source of such continual and endless vexation as
no people could support…. The proprietor of
stock is properly a citizen of the world, and is
not necessarily attached to any particular
country. He would be apt to abandon the
country in which he was exposed to a vexatious
inquisition, in order to be assessed to a
burdensome tax, and would remove his stock to
some other country where he could…
Adam Smith…Continued
…either carry on his business, or enjoy his
fortune more at his ease. By removing his stock
he would put an end to all the industry which it
had maintained in the country which he left.
Stock cultivates land; stock employs labour. A
tax which tended to drive away stock from any
particular country would so far tend to dry up
every source of revenue both to the sovereign
and to the society. Not only the profits of stock,
but the rent of land and the wages of labour
would necessarily be more or less diminished by
its removal. —Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the
Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776.